So, all you actually have here is speculation about a future reinterpretation, don't you? It's not actually in the bill and the bill passing wouldn't make it legal.
I am writing that you and I don't decide. The least representative branch of government will: the judiciary. And they can decide, not in the future but right now, the right to rape children MAY be included.
... idiots who argued against decriminalising homosexuality tried to convince people it would lead to marrying dogs.
There are women marrying dolphins and trees and engaging in "sologomy" marrying themselves. Not sure what the legal impact of such acts is.
Course, Anita says this is just how she celebrated her birthday, not marrying herself
This already means your line about how Dems are trying to normalise and legalise child rape is utter hogwash. You can no more accuse them of doing so, as you can accuse the people who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act-- which has exactly the same protections for other groups, and would be open to exactly the same nonexistent hypothetical reinterpretation.
I do not understand this sentence. You talking about anti miscegenation decision?
No: You're trying to draw a legal equivalence here between 1) my right to marry a consenting adult I love, & work free of discrimination on the basis of loving men; and 2) child rape. That is fucking repulsive. A morally and logically bankrupt smear, with no basis whatsoever in either law or even just decent human thought.
How about a man's right to call himself a woman and competing in women's sports, erasing women? Would a reasonable interpretation of this child rape advancing law include protecting "trans-women"' aka men's, rights to erase women in sports?
I hear the 2 top boxing contenders in the women's Olympics are both biological men.
I have a daughter that I would be outraged if she trained hard to be the best of the best, but found herself erased by such men.
But on topic, can Trump use this topic to help himself in 2024. Sadly, I think not. The crazy bitter childless cat ladies are more likely to support this sort of thing than just about anyone else!!!
As a heterosexual cis man I'm still allowed to work around women and people aren't allowed to discriminate against me being employed in places that serve or cater to women. Now why is that? Might it be because forcefully acting on my orientation would be illegal? Could that be the reason? We already have laws criminalizing everything someone attracted to minors might potentially do to a minor, laws that cover everyone meaning that it isn't discrimination, so your argument is moot and you've, once again, been shilling for some of the worst people out there.
Heck, if there was less stigma attached to a sexual orientation (literally your brain being wired in a certain manner) a lot more people might be willing to seek councelling or advice on how to avoid acting on said orientation.
We are seeing a backlash against companies that have a policy to avoid hiring white men as the current USSC is starting to find DEI to be an illegal violation of the 14th. I'd prefer a 1st A. protection of association. If Harvard University wants diversity? Go for it. You want an all white bus company? Good luck with that: I think you'll fail but it should be your right to try if you want to do so. The idea is get the Fed out of the quota business.
Not sure what else you're writing. Do you want to de stigmatize MAPS in the hopes they'll be more likely to not break the law?
I think I've heard this argument before. Oh yeah, it was along the lines of "if we don't put gay people in jail then they'll rape our children".
I'm sure the members of NAMBLA make similar arguments.
They are indeed under attack, but not by drag queens or people acknowledging the rights of trans people.
I disagree but for this thread, my question is, would Trump bringing it up help his electoral chances. I'm convinced now, there are too many crazy bitter childless cat ladies that love this sort of thing to help.
